Getty Images
As best as I can tell, New York Times columnist David Brooks is a well-connected pundit. Powerful people return his phone calls, and when he wants information from top governmental offices, Brooks tends to get it.
And with this in mind, it's puzzling that Brooks based his entire column today on an easily-checked error. The conservative pundit insists President Obama "declines to come up with a proposal to address" next week's sequester mess, adding, "The president hasn't actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration."
I'll never understand how conservative media personalities get factual claims like this so very wrong. If Brooks doesn't like Obama's sequester alternative, fine; he can write a column explaining his concerns. But why pretend the president's detailed, already published plan, built on mutual concessions from both sides, doesn't exist? If you're David Brooks, why don't you just pick up the phone, call the West Wing, and say, "Do you folks have a proposal to address the sequester or not?" I'm certain an administration official would help him by sending him exactly what he's looking for, and then he wouldn't have to publish claims that are demonstrably wrong.
In the larger context, Brooks' deeply unfortunate error is symptomatic of a larger problem: as sequestration approaches, we're stuck in a debate in which facts seem to have very little meaning.
"President Obama has said that unless he gets a second tax hike in eight weeks, he will be forced to let criminals loose on the streets, the meat at your grocery store won't be inspected and emergency responders will be unable to do their jobs," [House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.)] said in his statement.
"These are false choices. We are faced with the negative effects of the sequester because Democrats have not been able to take even the smallest step towards controlling spending."
Why lie like this? Cantor surely knows that President Obama has already accepted over $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. Cantor surely knows over $2.4 trillion in debt reduction has already happened. Cantor surely knows the deficit has nearly been cut in half over the last four years. Cantor surely knows Obama has offered to accept another $600 billion in spending cuts as part of a sequester compromise. So why put out a statement based on claims that aren't true?
The country is facing a real threat next week and there's room a worthwhile debate, but it's important for the public to understand that a constructive discussion is impossible when there's no shared basis for reality.
Leave a Comment:
Neither party wants to be identified with specific cuts to popular programs. So, aggregate numbers mask the hit lists.
Bingo.
The problem is that the media is controlled by a few. There is very little "free press and speech" in the United States. Look at the information loop. A false report appears on the internet. It is picked up by FoxNews. The politicians who listen to FoxNews and the lobbyists of the .1%ers pick up the report and come on FoxNews to comment on it. Then other media, also owned by the .1%ers, pick up the story and then it becomes "fact." If there is a response to set the record straight, FoxsNews and others will not broadcast it or will distort it. Censorship of opposing views is rampant on FoxNews.
So if every source that Brooks checks says the same thing then he will run with the story, even though it is factually flawed.
Apparently in Mr. Brook's universe it is not a plan unless it involves surrender and ass kissing.
It is not a plan unless it guts/privatizes SS, Medicare and Medicaid. A tax cut for the rich would also make it more visible.
...We are faced with the negative effects of the sequester ...
The phrasing is interesting...I am curious if Cantor believes that there are positive effects of the sequester. Because according to GOP orthodoxy, these negative effects are the positive effects.
"Cantor surely knows. . ."
Yes, but that is immaterial: does the PUBLIC know?
Probably not, as they are working their butts off, trying to keep their heads above water- sorry about the mixed metaphor.
Day you have it right. The public may not know because the corporate owned media does such a piss poor job of informing US of the real issues. Or the other standard "both sides do it" when clearly NOTHING like the level of obstructionism, ill-will, unwillingness etc. has never been demonstrated by democrats when they were in either the minority or majority!
It's a sad statement for our nation.
For good, factual, fair, reporting - Public Radio is your friend. For good information, factual reporting with clips and laughs - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the BEST!! Love that Man!!
The public may not know yet but they will when they, their neighbors, their relatives start getting furloughed. And Wal-Mart will know when their customers stop showing up.
Wal-Mart has already seen the handwriting on the wall and are in a panic about Feb. sales numbers. They better be glad that SS and Medicare are not going to be cut because many if not most of their customers are over 65. I wonder how much they get from Medicare Part D in their pharmacies?
Unmoored either by false information, false statements, conflated nonsense, obfuscation, and/or reckless abandon of civil discourse - what marks Republican talking points, debate strategy, or, you fill in the blank _________!
David Brooks seems not to be in the know as much as he professes to be. Too bad he is on the national stage! Perhaps he knows not the unfortunate circumstances his writing may have created - perhaps! -Kevo
OK here is the narrative the Republicans want to weave
1) the President is not weak and not demonstrating strong leadership
2) the President only wants to raise taxes
3) the Republicans are being perfectly reasonable and everyone else is a "Poopyhead" ( I think that is a technical term) and being mean to them.
All of which is of course complete 100% USDA Choice Bullpucky
The problem the GOP is having right now is that they agreed to a tax hike and now the white house wants them to follow through on a campaign promise and close loopholes.
If you don't close the loopholes the tax hike is meaningless and if you close the loopholes the rates are meaningless so it's a wash...but the thing is this time we actually WANT the money.
There are two things that have struck me recently...
one (and a lot of other people have noticed too) is that the GOP keeps saying they need to stop being seen as defending the rich and then they do stuff like this
two that everyone on the right and the left keeps talking about the plight of the middle class and no one has talked about the poor at all. The reason is kind of psychological because when asked people overestimate their wealth...poor people don't think they are poor.
But sooner or later they will figure it out...and they vote
The middleclass and the poor. In today's America what is the difference?
The convenience of being a right winged hack. It seems truth is no burden when writing articles for right winged loons. Merely blame Obama, curse the media and come off as holier than thou.
If you don't have the facts on your side, lie. If your plan is to obstruct and do nothing, then you blame the other guy. Straight out of the conservative playbook.
It happens when you're that deep in denial.
Inconvenient facts just get washed away.
The GOP learned starting with Reagan that you could head fake America and say a lot of stuff that's false and the press would fail at their jobs. then there's the false equivalency thing that the major media outlets specialize in. Morning JOE's Joe doesn't have Rachael on much because - she points out the bull puckey joe doles out on a daily basis. He acts reasonable, like Mr Cleaver but he carries water for the GOP . . He was demonizing Obama for picking on the rich - the poor GOP gets picked on - really? How about they do bad things (Iraq), lie and generally have bad ideas and can't do simple math. In the End - Brooks is no different. They have Frank Luntz syndrome - craft your lies carefully and repeat and repeat - those silly voters and brian williams won't know the difference!
Brooks is a clown who can't be taken seriously
So the RWNJs claim that Obama has the Mainstream Media in his pocket, that they protect him by not reporting the "facts". Then Fox News et al "uncover" (manufacture) their own "facts" and they are reported by "respected journalists". I sincerely hope the American public can see through this and not fall into the "I-heard-it-from-someone-respected-so-it-must-be-true" trap and actually fact-check it themselves.
NOBODY on the Republican side checks anything..........at least not in MY family. The relatives have on FOX and CNBC all day long (checking the stock market, no less). They are old(er), Southern, white, church goers (mostly).....they WANT to believe the socialist, Kenyan, Muslim. communists, nazi, BLACK president is driving this country off the cliff.
Judi, your family exemplifies Karl Rove's "wedge and win" strategy. They listen to Fox and believe it is "fair and balanced" and that all the "mainstream" media is "lame stream." Then, as properly indocrinated "true believers" they go out and preach the Rove gospel of, as you say it, "they WANT to believe the socialist, Kenyan, Muslim. communists, nazi, BLACK president is driving this country off the cliff."
By the way, there are not many "liberal" voices that are mainstream. MSNBC has some, but they balance the liberal with the "conservative," e.g., Joe of Morning Joe.
Thank you for finally calling Cantor's words lies and not letting him get away with it by calling it confusion.
Something about Brooks' column that wasn't mentioned by Steve is that Brooks is calling for the abolition of Medicare and Social Security because he considers those to be the real cause of the debt.
I listen to some of the loons on right wing radio(Mark Levin, Andy Dean, etc...) to see what the other side has to say, and to make sure I can keep up with, and research, the nutjob spin of the day. It is amazing to me how often they flat out lie and distort truths when they address their audience.
From what I see, the problem is that the GOP lie factory has gone unchecked for 4 years. Their delusions and pure dishonesty has been repeated on mainstream news outlets without being called out as lies out of FEAR by the networks of being labeled as "favoring" Obama. Now that they have been living in their fantasy world so long, they actually believe their lies. I blame the liars but also ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, and even MSNBC for allowing them to get away with it for so long.
Wow! Steve, you just did the very thing that you accused Brooks of doing. The debt has not been reduced. "Cantor surely knows over $2.4 trillion in debt reduction has already happened."
Jan 1, 2013 debt: $16,432,730,050,569.12
Today: $16,588,751,035,306.37
Or to the start of Obama's presidency: $10,626,877,048,913.08
So, pundits on both sides are guilty of pushing agenda vs the truth! This is why the current "media" has no credibility whatsoever. Hypocrite!
I think you are actually both right. In the context of the article Steve is talking about the yearly deficit reduction. You are talking about the overal deficit. So you are both essentially correct in the points you make. This is why it is important for people to be working from a common framework when discussing an issue. Many times the failure to do so leads both sides to accuse the other of falsehood and spin when it is in fact simply a problem of talking about two different things. It's why I try to get my news and "facts" from several different places. There are nuggets of info to be mined from most all sources, be they Fox or MSNBC.
Great point Veogo. However, in the article he stated info about reduced spending and then the comment about debt reduction. There is only increase in debt. No viable proof of any reduction. I sourced from treasurydirect.gov.
I agree with your point of various sources. This reminds me of an old Bible saying "remove the plank from your eye before you try to remove the splinter from someone else."
@ Veogo
I'm trying to verify Steve's contention that
refer to www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals Table 1.1
I'm reading, in trillions..
2005 .318
2006 .248
2007 .160
2008 .458
2009 1.412
2010 1.293
2011 1.299
2012 1.326 (est.)
Both sides agreed to the Sequestration. The date that it would come into play is no big suprise.
Sequestration, as agreed upon, pertains specifically to reduction in government SPENDING... correct? And addressed a specific amount of SPENDING... correct?
So, it is logical that if both sides don't like where that SPENDING reductions are coming from, get together and agree on alternative areas for those reductions to come out of.
Why not sit down with the legislation passed by the House in May, 2012 and Dec, 2012 (to replace the sequestration) with any legislation passed by the Senate (please advise as I would like to compare it also) and the President's written proposal (also please advise as I would like to compare) and propose alternate SPENDING CUTS.
The "both sides do it" troll meme dressed as a pseudo-right wing question.
Neat.
@Donna
humm... the "troll" comment doesn't dress up well as a fact based argument.
hmmm...the "troll" comment doesn't dress up well if it is shooter style comment or your "fact based argument." Bullsh*t still stinks. No matter how much perfume you put on it.
please specify, which part is bullsh*t?
... the Whitehouse.gov historical table 1.1 about receipt, outleys, surplus/deficits?
...or the section referring to the legislation passed by the house (HR 5652, HR 6684 among others...) to replace the sequestration?
... or the request for references with regards to what the Senate and the President have put forth?
What would you find as an acceptable way to express a differing opinion or do you just object to anyone coming on this blog who has a differing opinion?
Answer: All of it.
Since the start of fiscal year 2011, Congress and the president have cut about $1.5 trillion in programmatic spending, raised about $630 billion in new revenue, and generated about $300 billion in interest savings, for a combined total of more than $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2013/01/08/49137/the-deficit-reduction-we-have-achieved-so-far/
The President has put forth THIS plan:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction_table_bucketed_r8.pdf
Answer: because the republicans refuse to compromise to avert the sequester. It’s the party’s explicit, publicly stated position.
You start the "both sides do it" with a healthy dose of "oh me, oh my can anybody help me figure this out because to my understanding, both sides are guilty...."
Now: you can find out this information yourself. You can express yourself in any way you see fit. I don't care how you do it. I understand what it is you are trying to do. And it is bullsh*t. No matter what it's wrapped up in.
It's a shame that Brooks doesn't lose his f-ing job.. Sequester is what the low-mentality, reality challenged electorate in Amercia* deserves. After all, we've been "taxed enough already" and the roads pave them-@!$%#ing selves, right?! Obviously the country has not suffered nearly long enough under the two party blight. This isn't a both sides do it meme, this is the whole country is insane.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that "Sequestration" was the Obama's idea? Why is it that whenever there are any kind of budget cuts you Progressives have to scare the public that violent prisoners will have to be freed, first responders will be let go, essential services will cease to operate, and checks won't be able to go out on time? Why is it that we call a reduction in spending increase a budget cut? Can you name one true cut that caused any part of the Federal Government to have less money then the previous year? Why can't we cut things like grants to study the effects of video game playing on senior citizens, or cut the 10,000 new IRS positions created by Obama? No we can't do that we have to cut air traffic control assets, and airport security. Additionally, please give me one specific thing that Obama has compromised on and don't throw some BS number at me I want to know what he cut and when the cut will happen. If you tell me that the cut will happen after the current congress is over it doesn't count because it would be unconstitutional (like that matters to you progressives). By the way what ever happened to the President's pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class? You don[t have to answer that we all know it was just another bunch of crap he fed us to get re=elected. How come since Obama Care started student healthcare costs have gone from $150 to $650 a year to north of $1,700 a year. How come college tuition rates continue to rise out of control along with college administration salaries and there is no out rage? Lastly, where was the Obama for the seven hours that the battle was going on in Libya and 4 Americans were killed? By the way I'm in the military and have been part of a QRF force and know that they could have had military boots on the ground within 90 minutes if the President was available to authorize the use of the QRF. You might want to go onto CSPAN and watch Leon Panetta's testimony to congress on the subject. By the way Benghazi is a place not some guy named Ben Ghazi as a Progressive friend of mine thought. Just say-in
Non-Enlightened: Obama wanted a clean debt ceiling increase bill like the last twenty Presidents got, not a hostage taking debacle that cost us a AAA rating. Thats what us progressives call a fact. You folks need a simple contingency, that people forget the truth, in order to be effective with your fabrications. Not gonna work a bunch of times in a row, you folks already played these same lies...
Obama and Lew put forth the Sequestration idea and then said the Republicans did. If you want to talk about someone lying. They need to not be on record with things if they don't want to be caught lying.
Then Carney had to basically admit Obama and Lew were lying. The Dude would be shaking his head at you right now.
Let it be known the 99% of us are not spending, that's the only vote that really counts. You first, Mr. Brooks how many fancy suits do you have hanging in your closet? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
They are LYING. Period. They are so afraid of being 'blamed' for what they VOTED for that they lie. See Peggy Noonan's column today. Honest to GOD.
The Republicans just cannot stop lying. It's like diarrhea - they can't control it.
Why make up facts? Why not? The press no longer fact checks or challenges politicians when they make up facts whole cloth because they no longer actually perform journalism, they just repeat what both sides say. They are allowed to make up an entire front page of news now that is detached from reality. Look at the stories that never get challenged per last nights story, in regards to minimum wage increases despite decades of evidence that there is no downside to raising the minimum wage and all kinds of upsides.
I don't know where they found the photo of Brooks, but it's priceless!
I have a proposal. It involves the House and Senate doing their goddam jobs.
I know, I know...it'll never happen.